ORDER
1. The petitioner filed this contempt case to punish the respondents for contempt of Court, for willful disobedience of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.M.P. No. 34975/96 in W.P. No. 28344/96, D/- 14-3-97.
2. The facts in brief, as seen from the affidavit filed in the contempt case and the writ petition, are stated as under :
The petitioner is the joint owner along with his parents, of the house bearing No. 4-1-106, Nehru Gunj, Tandur. He applied to the 1st respondent for permission to construct first floor. The 2nd respondent raised objections for the construction and threatened that if any construction was made, it would be demolished. The 2nd respondent has no right over the petitioner’s property, to raise any objection. In fact the 2nd respondent has been placing obstacles in the way of petitioner’s constriction right from the year 1957, when the house was first constructed. His predecessor-in-interest, has filed a civil suit O.S. No. 54/1 of 1957, on the file of the District Munsif, Tandur for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction, when the petitioner’s father started construction in the year 1957. The suit was, however, dismissed on 10-7-1958 for the plaintiff’s failure to adduce evidence after issues were framed. Thereafter, the house was constructed. When the petitioner again started construction of the first floor, the 2nd respondent again illegally started raising objections. Though the 1st respondent granted permission to the petitioner for construction of first floor, the 2nd respondent’s son had filed an objection petition before the 1st respondent, upon which the petitioner was asked to stop the work and to submit all the documents. The, 2nd respondent filed O.S. No. 12/88 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad, for perpetual and mandatory injunction. The suit was ultimately dismissed on 25-1-1994 for non-prosecution of the same. Thereafter, the petitioner again applied for permission for construction of first floor on the existing building and the permission was granted on 7-6-96. Accordingly, the petitioner started construction. However, the 2nd respondent again tried to interfere with the construction, which constrained the petitioner to file O.S. 234/96 on the file of the District Munsif, Tandur, against the 2nd respondent and his sons. The petitioner obtained orders of injunction on 19-11-96 in I.A. No. 572/96, restraining the 2nd respondent and his sons from interfering with the construction by the petitioner. As the 2nd respondent could not stop the construction, he influenced the 1st respondent to somehow suspend the permission granted by him. Thereupon, the 1st respondent started harassment of the petitioner and when the petitioner insisted for written orders, the 1st respondent issued show-cause notice, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16-12-96. Yet, the 1st respondent threatened to stop the construction. Unable to bear the harassment, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 27857/96. But before it was taken up for admission, the 1st respondent issued orders D/- 26-12-96 suspending the permission for construction of first floor D/- 7-6-96, with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition and this Court ordered notice to all the respondents. After counter-affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent and after service of notice to all other respondents, this Court passed an order D/- 14-3-97 in W.P.M.P. No. 34975/96. The order reads as follows :-
“Petition filed under S. 151 of C.P.C. praying the High Court to suspend the operation of impugned proceedings bearing Roc. No. 643/96, dated 26-12-1996 passed by the first respondent and consequently permit the petitioner to proceed with the construction as per the sanctioned plan, pending W.P. No. 28344/96 on the file of the High Court.
The Court while directing issue of notice to the respondents herein to show cause why this application should not he complied with made the following order. (The receipt of this order will be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case).
ORDER : Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Chandraiah request time to file counter. Heard the counsel for R-2. Post on 21-3-1997. Meanwhile there shall be suspension of impugned order as prayed for.”
3. The petitioner started construction of first floor on 18-3-97, as per the sanctioned plan. The 2nd respondent again threatened him with demolition, if the petitioner proceeds with the construction, though he was informed that in view of the orders of this Court he was entitled to proceed with the construction. On the same day the 1st respondent came to the site along with Building and Sanitary Inspectors and ordered the petitioner to stop the work and asked him to come to the office. Accordingly, the petitioner went to the office and showed the orders of this Court D/- 14-3-97. However, the 1st respondent would not heed for the orders of this Court and threatened him that he would order demolition, if he proceeds with the construction. However, the petitioner proceeded with the construction on the strength of the orders of this Court.
4. On 22-3-1997 at about 9 a.m., the 1st respondent along with respondents 3 to 5 and other employees of the Municipality came to the site of the petitioner and started straightway demolition of the construction that was made. The petitioner protested showing the order of this Court and requested the 1st respondent not to demolish without issuing written orders and he also showed the orders of the Court. But the 1st respondents did not care for the orders and went away asking the staff to proceed with demolition. The petitioner, his brother and their advocate Sri Bhavanappa asked the officials to stop the demolition. They also confronted the Commissioner, but he would not care to the orders of this Court. The operation of demolition was stopped only after considerable damage was caused. Respondents 2, 6, 7 and 8, have also joined in the demolition of building. The petitioner suffered a damage to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs in view of the illegal demolition. The petitioner submits that the respondents are, therefore, liable to be punished for contempt of Court.
5. A common counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5. The 1st respondent deposed to the said counter-affidavit. He admitted granting of permission D/- 7-6-96 to the petitioner for construction of 1st floor. It was averred that on the objection petition filed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner, who filed his explanation on 11-12-96. Meanwhile, it was averred, the 2nd respondent filed O.S. No. 234/96 on the file of the District Munsif, Tandur, for perpetual injunction against the petitioner restraining him from making construction. Pending further action on the objection petition filed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued proceedings D/- 26-12-96 under S. 344(6) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, suspending the proceedings D/- 7-6-96. Adverting to the order of this Court D/- 14-3-97, which was received by him on 18-3-97, it was averred that he understood the order as though it suspended the impugned order in the writ petition, this Court, however, refused to grant relief of carrying on the construction. Since the petitioner was reported to have been taking steps to go ahead with the construction and the 2nd respondent since complained about the construction as usual it was averred that he directed the petitioner to stop the construction till the disputes between the parties are settled and as the petitioner did not stop the construction as directed, it was admitted, he ordered demolition on 21-3-97 as complained of by the petitioner. He, therefore, justifies the action taken by him. However, an apology was expressed for his action. An additional counter-affidavit was also filed by the 1st respondents, after the arguments were heard, on 11-7-97, tendering unconditional apology.
6. Respondents 2, 6, 7 and 8 have also filed common counter-affidavit it stating that they never participated, in the demolition that took place.
7. On the material placed before me and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having given the matter my anxious consideration, I am satisfied that the 1st respondents has acted in utter disregard of the order of this Court D/- 14-3-97 in not only preventing the petitioner from proceedings with the construction of the 1st floor of his house, but in demolishing the construction already made. The basic facts, which are undisputed in this case, are as indicated below :
i) By order D/- 7-6-96 the 1st respondent has granted permission to the petitioner to construct first floor of his house.
ii) By an order D/- 26-12-96 the petitioner was directed not to proceed with the construction of the 1st floor of the house pending a civil dispute.
The petitioner filed W.P. No. 28344/96 and along with it he filed WPMP No. 34975/96 requesting for suspension of the operation of the order impugned in the writ petition, viz., 1st respondent’s order D/- 26-12-96, and consequently permitting the petitioner to proceed with the construction.
iv) This Court, by order D/- 14-3-97, passed interim order in WPMP No. 34975/96, suspending the impugned order as prayed for.
v) The petitioner started construction of the 1st floor on 18-3-97 in accordance with the permission granted by the 1st respondent, on the strength of the interim order.
vi) The 1st respondent, though received the order on 18-3-97 prevented the petitioner from proceeding with the construction, in spite of the order of this Court, which was also shown to him by the petitioner.
vii) On the orders of the 1st respondent D/- 21-3-97 for demolition of the construction made by the petitioner, the constructed portion was demolished on 22-3-97 with the aid of the respondents 3 to 5 and other employees of the Municipality.
8. By virtue of the permission D/- 7-6-96 granted by the 1st respondent to the petitioner to construct the 1st floor of his house, the petitioner started construction. However, the 1st respondent by his order D/- 26-12-96, directed not to proceed with the construction in spite of the permission granted by him earlier. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition and also filed WPMP No. 34975/96 seeking suspension of the order D/- 26-12-96. This Court while admitting the writ petition, passed interim orders D/- 14-3-97 ordering interim suspension of the impugned order in the writ petition, viz., the order directing not to proceed with the construction in spite of the permission earlier granted by the 1st respondent. From the above series of events it follows that the petitioner was entitled to continue the construction in accordance with the permission granted by the 1st respondent on 7-6-96. Accordingly, after showing the order of this Court to the 1st respondent, the petitioner continued construction on 18-3-97. However, the 1st respondent prevented the construction by the petitioner and on 22-3-97 he started demolishing the constructed portion with the aid of his demolishing squad causing considerable damage to the petitioner. In this case, the 1st respondent owned the responsibility for demolition. He, however, put forward a specious plea that as per his understanding of the order of this Court D/- 14-3-97, he need not permit the petitioner to construct the 1st floor, since, according to him, the order did not contain any specific direction for the continuance of the construction. He, therefore, justifies his action of demolishing the construction.
9. There is absolutely no substance in this plea. It is wholly untenable. When the order of the 1st respondent directing not to proceed with the construction, in spite of earlier permission to construction, was suspended by this Court, the earlier permission would revive. There need not be any direction for continuance of the construction as per the earlier permission. If the petitioner could not continue the construction, the order of this Court ordering interim suspension, has no meaning. The 1st respondent’s plea would have been plausible if there was clear direction by the Court refusing a clear direction to continue With construction and an order status quo was passed. The 1st respondent is not an illiterate person to have misconstrued order. He is the Commissioner of the Municipality and an experienced officer discharging onerous responsible duties. He must have received several orders of this type from the Court. In my view, the 1st respondent is not bona fide in raising this plea. I would have accepted his plea, if he, entertaining a doubt about the implication of the order, obtained clarification or opinion of the Standing Counsel of the Municipality and acted according to that advice. He has not adopted that course, which in fact he has done so while passing the order D/- 26-12-96, which was impugned in the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows :
“3. As the matter is involved with legal complication, the explanation dated 11-12-1996 of Sri K. Ashok Kumar and copies of documents plans etc., along with objection petition of Sri Bedigi Sangappa s/o Veerappa dated 5-12-1996 and copies of documents plans etc., were referred to the Municipal Standing Counsel, Tandur, for his legal opinion.
4. The Municipal Standing Counsel, Tandur, in his legal opinion dated 26-12-1996 has observed that both the parties have filed the “Xerox” copies of the sale deeds and maps thereto and that the attached Xerox copies of sale deed, are not clear to ascertain whether the wall in question is a common wall or exclusive wall. He has, therefore, opinioned that both the parties are directed first to be decided in the Civil Court to ascertain whether the wall in dispute is common wall or exclusive wall and if it be so, to whom it belongs to as already there is a dispute pending before the Civil Court. He has, further stated that until the decision of the Court be finalled, (sic) both parties are directed not to construct on the disputed wall, and permission issued be suspended till the Court order be finalled (sic).”
It is not as though there was no sufficient time for him to obtain the opinion of the Standing Counsel. Since the petitioner started construction on 18-3-97 and operation of demolition took place on 22-3-97, which gave him much time to approach the Standing Counsel. It is not sure whether the 1st respondent having received the opinion from the Standing Counsel had acted contrary to the said opinion in demolishing the building. Be that as it may, the hollowness of the plea of the 1st respondent would be self-evident on a perusal of the “better affidavit” D/- 10-7-97 filed by him tendering unconditional apology. Paras 4 and 5 of the better affidavit read as follows :
“4. It is respectfully submitted that I passed the order of demolition without proper application of mind and due to the various forces that were on me. But at the same time, I was in good faith that I was acting in obedience of the order of the Hon’ble High Court.
5. But, I respectfully submitted that now I realise that my action is illegal and in contravention of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, I express unconditional apology before the Hon’ble High Court contravening the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.”
The justification made by the 1st respondent therefore, is absolutely devoid of substance. He thought that he was clever and smart and wanted to play with the orders of this Court. The due course of judicial orders cannot he permitted to be slighted. Nobody would be permitted to interfere or obstruct the due course of administration of justice. The purpose underlying the law of contempt is to maintain the confidence of the public in the courts of justice and maintain the majesty of law and dignity of the Courts, it is not for the sake of satisfying the ego of the Judges, as wrongly supposed in many quarters.
10. Thus, the conduct of the 1st respondent clearly amounted to deliberate violation of the order of this Court. Mere obstruction or prevention of the petitioner from construction, after receiving the order of this Court, would have amounted to contempt. The ruthless demolition of the construction by the demolishing squad on the 1st respondent’s specific orders, amounted to gross contempt of Court by the 1st respondent. It has, therefore, to be held that the 1st respondent has committed gross contempt of Court. He is liable for conviction of the same.
11. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent has strenuously urged, in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the 1st respondent, to discharge him. In this context it is to be noted that in the counter-affidavit the 1st respondent has given a mere pretence of apology stoutly justifying his action of demolition. He stated that “if for any reason his action was found objectionable and in contravention of the orders of this Court, it was not intentional or wilful and, therefore, he was expressing an unconditional apology as they were done in good faith.” A reading of this portion of the counter-affidavit did not reveal any remorse on his part. He, therefore, volunteered to file a better affidavit in which he expressed unconditional apology stating that the demolition caused by him was illegal and therefore he was expressing unconditional apology for contravention of the orders of this court. But it has to be borne in mind that this affidavit was filed on 10-7-97, after the arguments were advanced by both the sides in the contempt case and the 1st respondent realising that the court was not prepared to accept his plea justifying his action of demolition. Such a belated apology, in my view, did not show real contriteness in him. It was made only to escape punishment. In this regard the observations made by the Apex Court in Mulkh Raj v. State of Punjab, , are worth noticing (at p. 755 of Cri. L.J.) :
“9. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemner finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of cringing coward ………..”
I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the apology tendered by the 1st respondent to discharge him from punishment. However, the same is taken into consideration in awarding punishment.
12. In the circumstances, I convict the 1st respondent for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), within one month from today, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
13. Coming to the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5, they have only discharged their duties in obedience to the orders passed by this superior officer viz., the 1st respondent. In the circumstances they cannot be held liable for contempt of court.
14. Respondents Nos. 2, 6, 7 and 8 have filed counter affidavit stating that they had not participated in the act of demolishing of the house of the petitioner nor in any way violated the order of this Court. Hence, they are also not liable for contempt of court.
15. Accordingly, contempt case against respondents 2 to 8 is dismissed.
16. The contempt case is disposed of accordingly.
17. Order accordingly.